HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 34010 of 2025 Court No. - 48 HON'BLE KSHITIJ SHAILENDRA, J. 1. Heard Shri Akhilendra Singh, learned counsel for the applicants and the learned AGA for the State-respondent. 2. This instant application under Section 528 BNSS has been filed seeking quashing of the charge sheet dated 26.11.2024, cognizance order dated 10.04.2025 as well as entire proceedings of Case No. 35020 of 2025 arising out of Case Crime No. 274 of 2024, under Sections 115(2), 352, 351(2), 351(3) B.N.S, P.S. Sadar Bazar, District Mathura. 3. Submission is that all the aforesaid offences are non-cognizable and in view of the explanation attached to Section 2(1)(h) of B.N.S.S., 2023, corresponding to Section 2(1)(d) CrPC, no cognizance could have been taken pursuant to the charge sheet. In support of his submission, reliance has been placed on following orders passed by this Court:- "(i) Tej Singh Verma and 3 others Vs. State of U.P. and another, Application U/s 482 No. 10216 of 2021, decided on 12.07.2021; (ii) Indrapal Singh Vs. State of U.P. and another, Application U/s 528 BNSS No. 16466 of 2025, decided on 17.05.2025; and (iii) Anurag Yadav and 2 others Vs. State of U.P. and another, Application U/s 482 No. 5575 of 2020, decided on 10.02.2020 4. In the aforesaid cases, while discussing the law relating to submission of charge sheet in non-cognizable offences, the orders impugned were set Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Akhilendra Singh, Ramanuj Tiwari Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Pooja and another .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. and another .....Opposite Party(s) aside and the matter was remanded to the court concerned to pass reasoned and speaking order after providing opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned. 5. Learned AGA could not dispute the legal position as argued by leaned counsel for the applicants. 6. Section 2(1) (h) of B.N.S.S. is reproduced herein below: "2(1)(h). "complaint" means any allegation made orally or in writing to a Magistrate, with a view to his taking action under this Sanhita, that some person, whether known or unknown, has committed an offence, but does not include a police report. Explanation.-A report made by a police officer in a case which discloses, after investigation, the commission of a non-cognizable offence shall be deemed to be a complaint; and the police officer by whom such report is made shall be deemed to be the complainant;" 7. A bare perusal of explanation added to Section 2(1)(h) shows that this explanation speaks about cases where police has investigated a case but investigation made discloses a non-cognizable offence, police report shall be deemed to be complaint. 8. In view of the above, the Court is convinced that the order impugned dated 10.04.2025 taking cognizance in the matter is not sustainable. 9. The order impugned dated 10.04.2025 is hereby quashed. 10. The matter is remanded to the court concerned to pass an order afresh after providing opportunity of haring to the parties strictly in accordance with law. 11. The application stands disposed of. September 9, 2025 AKShukla/- NA528 No. 34010 of 2025 2 (Kshitij Shailendra,J.) Digitally signed by :- ANIL KUMAR SHUKLA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad